RUM-5873: Reactivate Session Replay instrumented test for API 21

[ambushwork]

What does this PR do?

Reactive Session Replay instrumented test for API 21,
Fix a drawable resolving issue due to the different behavior on lower API.

Motivation

RUM-5873

Review checklist (to be filled by reviewers)

• Feature or bugfix MUST have appropriate tests (unit, integration, e2e)
• Make sure you discussed the feature or bugfix with the maintaining team in an Issue
• Make sure each commit and the PR mention the Issue number (cf the CONTRIBUTING doc)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 25.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 70.34%. Comparing base (d13c96a) to head (d5adb23).
Report is 2 commits behind head on feature/sr-integration-test.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...sessionreplay/utils/LegacyDrawableToColorMapper.kt	25.00%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                       Coverage Diff                       @@
##           feature/sr-integration-test    #2342      +/-   ##
===============================================================
- Coverage                        70.35%   70.34%   -0.01%     
===============================================================
  Files                              739      739              
  Lines                            27562    27564       +2     
  Branches                          4617     4619       +2     
===============================================================
- Hits                             19391    19389       -2     
- Misses                            6878     6890      +12     
+ Partials                          1293     1285       -8     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...sessionreplay/utils/LegacyDrawableToColorMapper.kt	46.51% <25.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️

... and 29 files with indirect coverage changes

[0xnm]

lgtm, but I believe we will still have a wrong stacktrace in case if test fails on API 21, because some classes used by AssertJ don't exist there?

[ambushwork]

@0xnm I am not sure what do you mean, can you elaborate?

[0xnm]

I mean AssertJ is using some Java 8+ classes (ex. java.time.*) when printing failure message which don't exist on API 21.

[ambushwork]

@0xnm I see, do you have a quick workaround on this? otherwise we will create a ticket for it and let it be in this PR.

[0xnm]

The only quick workaround is desugaring, but I don't think we want to enable it. So let's keep it like that.